India's Arms Buildup: Guns Versus Bread

Guest Post: Col.(Retd) Pavan Nair

Considering the large size of our population, its high rate of growth, and millions living below the poverty line, the Government faces serious challenges of resource mobilization to provide adequately for satisfying even the minimum needs of our people. It is apparent that significant increases in allocations for defense in the future can be envisaged only by constricting the flow of funds to the social development sectors.

26 August, 1996, N. N. Vohra, Former Defense Secretary

(In a Foreword to ‘India’s Defense Budget and Expenditure Management’ By Amiya Kumar Ghosh, Lancer Publishers, New Delhi, 1996. The outlay on Defense during FY 1996-97 was Rs 29,505 crores)

The Kargil Review Committee Report, Para 9.21. - - - Some questions have been raised about the impact of declining defense expenditure on the nation’s capacity to counter effectively the Kargil intrusion and, in particular, the preparedness of the jawans for high altitude conflict. The evidence available to the Committee does not show that a paucity of resources was per se responsible for any lack of preparedness for the Kargil conflict.

Para 9.24. It is obvious, however, that over the years actual defense expenditure has been below the amount required by the defense forces to perform efficiently the tasks allotted to them. This has affected the process of modernization and has also created some unacceptable operational voids. Given the country’s resource constraints, the scope for enhancing defense outlays is somewhat limited without tightening up fiscal discipline elsewhere and ensuring a high growth rate of 6-7% for the economy. Hence, the defense Services must seek to extract the maximum value from each defense rupee. This will call for some drastic measures like restructuring of the defense forces, improving cost effectiveness of manpower, retraining and redeployment, dispensing with avoidable and unnecessary expenditure, rigorous prioritization, and focusing resources in areas likely to enhance the effectiveness of the defense forces in meeting the emerging challenges to the country’s security. In other words a total reform of defense structure, its interface with civil government, defense production and procurement is called for.

(Kargil Review Committee Report 1999, emphasis added. The outlay on Defense during FY 1999-2000 was Rs 45,694 crores)

The Mumbai terror attacks have given an entirely new dimension to cross-border terrorism. A threshold has been crossed. Our security environment has deteriorated considerably. In this context, I propose to increase the allocation for Defense, which is a part of non-plan expenditure to Rs.1,41,703 crores. This includes an amount of Rs 54,824 crores for capital expenditure. Needless to say, any additional requirement for the security of the nation will be provided for.

16 February 2009 Pranab Mukherjee

Background

Defense economics has not been a subject for serious study or debate in Indian academic or military circles. Little or no literature is available with the exception of a few books in the area of defense accounts. Economists and activists have long argued that defense related expenditure needs to be curtailed. Opinion is clearly divided between the developmental lobby and strategic thinkers who wield influence with the political leadership. This paper will attempt to make a realistic assessment of current levels of defense spending by evaluating the efficacy and intensity of military expenditure. Indeed, some arguments have been made before but bear repetition in the current scenario. Parliament passes the defense budget with little or no discussion. The media is largely ignorant or chooses to ignore the issue of defense spending. The view across the political spectrum and indeed the strategic community is that any exercise to limit defense spending amounts to compromising national security and is therefore not a viable consideration. Whilst it is true that development cannot take place in an insecure environment, defense expenditure (DE) in a developing country directly impacts the outlay on social spending. The "guns versus butter" argument is valid especially when the guns (and missiles) are not buying the security the country needs against asymmetrical threats from within and without.

In the Indian context, DE pertains to the external defense of the country by the regular armed forces. Expenditure on internal security, law and order, border management and fencing, coastal security and intelligence comes under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Border roads are taken care of by the Ministry of Surface Transport and the Indian Coast Guard comes directly under the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The defense budget forms the single largest item of discretionary expenditure. The outlay on defense has seen more than a three-fold hike in the decade after the war in Kargil from Rs 45,694 crores in 1999-2000 to Rs 1,41,703 crores in 2009-10 (All figures pertaining to DE have been taken from www.indiabudget.nic.in and are budget estimates unless otherwise stated). During this period there has been no accretion in force levels except for the raising of an additional corps and command headquarters from within the manpower ceiling of the army and a few units and formations for manning missile systems which can be used to deliver nuclear warheads. Two mountain divisions have recently been sanctioned for deployment in the North-East but the financial impact will be felt only when the formations complete raising. Force multipliers like UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and satellite imagery have become available. Electronic surveillance has become available down to unit level. The import route has been used extensively for modernization of the three services. It is contended that excessive dependence on imports and exercising the nuclear option in 1998 has taken military related expenditure to unsustainable levels.



The three-fold increase in expenditure in the last decade is not in real terms since inflation and the depreciation of the rupee have to be taken into account. In real terms, this amounts to a 75% rise assuming an average annual inflation rate of 12% and depreciation of 10.5%. This is a substantial hike considering the fact that the decadal growth of military expenditure worldwide in constant 2005 US dollars till 2008 was 45%. This includes the expenditure on the global war on terror which has raised US defense related expenditure to its highest level since the Second World War (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI] Military Expenditure Database 2009, www.sipri.org).

India is in the top-ten list of military spenders while it stands at number 128 out of 177 countries in the 2008 UNDP Human Development Index. China, the second lowest in human-development in the military-spending list is ranked at number 81 (www.undp.org). Human security must surely form a part of national security. The situation on the internal security front has deteriorated considerably. This can be attributed at least in part to the poor human development parameters affecting hundreds of millions of citizens who eke out an existence at sub-human levels. India has the dubious distinction of being home to the largest number of indigenous terrorist organizations. State police forces are ill-equipped to handle insurgency or terror. The Naxalite threat no longer remains just a menace and needs to be dealt with at various levels and not merely as a law and order problem. Coastal security is practically non-existent. . This has become apparent after the unhindered ingress of terrorists using the sea route. There are several dimensions of security which cannot be ignored. Defense budgets seldom meet the requirement of any military. There are always better weapon systems, heavier caliber guns and more lethal aircraft to be procured. Nuclear warheads, missiles, delivery and command and control systems are prohibitively expensive. Internal security which has remained neglected for several years can also consume a large share of available resources. There is thus a need to balance expenditure on internal and external security while keeping both within reasonable limits. This may be stating the obvious, but it needs to be stated.

Finance Commission on Defense Expenditure
In its wisdom, the Eleventh Finance Commission (EFC) which submitted its report in June 2000 laid an upper limit of up to 3% of the GDP for DE. It is worth noting that the informal NATO guideline for DE is 2% of GDP, though several countries notably the US have crossed that limit. Para 4.17 of the EFC states, “- - aggregate defense expenditure could reach 3% of GDP by 2004-05. We would emphasize that while the required resources may be provided, all possible measures for securing economy in defence expenditure should be taken.” Official DE in 2000 was at 2.3% of GDP. The EFC also noted (Para 4.15) that the fiscal deficit was expected to fall to 4.5% of the GDP by 2004-05, thereby implying that the hike in DE over the next few years had been facilitated by the improved fiscal situation and other measures suggested by the EFC to increase the availability of funds for both capital and revenue expenditure.

The specified limit of 3% has been observed only by excluding several items like the cost of the MoD and the expenditure on military pensions which by itself amounts to 15% of the total defense outlay. Several other items like the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JAKLI, a regular regiment of the army consisting of thirteen battalions) and the Coast Guard are also excluded. A substantial part of the cost of the nuclear arsenal and allied systems is excluded. All para-military forces including the ones directly involved in border management are excluded. The Parliamentary Committee on Defense spends most of its time on personnel matters and resolving issues of protocol between the service chiefs and the defense secretary. The Committee looks at DE but beyond stating that DE should be pegged at 3% of GDP, it has nothing substantial to contribute. Clearly, parliamentary oversight and control seems to be missing. For several years, DE in aggregate has crossed 3% of GDP.

The Nuclear Dimension

The expenditure on the nuclear arsenal is an additional burden on the economy. It is immaterial whether or not this cost is included in the defense budget. C Rammanohar Reddy in an article in the Hindu published in 1999 states that a poor man’s arsenal could cost anything between 0.5% and 1% of the GDP per year for about ten years till all systems are fully deployed. The capital cost of developing, testing and deploying systems over a period of say ten or twelve years could be between 6% and 10% of the GDP with a recurring and maintenance cost element to be added separately. Assuming an overall cost of 8% of GDP, the total expenditure at current levels has crossed Rs 4,50,000 crores. This cost has been split over several years between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the Department of Space (DOS), the Defense Research and Development Organiation (DRDO) and the army, navy and air force for delivery systems. The amount spent by each department or arm is not visible since it is merged with overall expenditure. It is therefore not possible to compute the current cost of nuclear deterrence, which for better or for worse forms an important leg of the country’s strategic posture. An assessment will however be made subsequently to arrive at the additional amount to be added to DE which currently includes the expenditure of the DRDO which has developed missiles and the cost of their deployment in the three services. Nuclear deterrence implies deploying air, land, sea and submarine based missiles besides delivery systems and command centers with communications and built in redundancy. India has also opted for an anti-missile system. The overall cost of the nuclear triad which includes nuclear powered submarines which are under construction and procurement has directly impacted available fiscal space and subsequently developmental spending.

As per the defense minister, India imports 70% of its weapon systems. These include delivery and data acquisition systems like aircraft, ships and submarines which are accounted for under conventional DE. India is the second largest importer of arms after China. Certain systems like the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) has been procured primarily to provide early warning of a nuclear as also conventional attack. AWAC systems have been around for several decades and India is in the process of developing its own system. Having gone overtly nuclear has actually spurred the procurement of additional systems which could have been developed within the country in due course. Clearly, the option to go nuclear, besides its own costs has added to the expenditure on conventional arms. Nuclear protagonists often state that conventional spending is likely to reduce when nuclear deterrence is in place. This is certainly not the case in the sub-continent and is getting reflected in Indian DE. We need to look at what constitutes DE.

Defining DE

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) defines DE as the expenditure on armed forces (including strategic forces and military space applications), ministries and government departments engaged with the armed forces (defence accounts, estates, canteen), military accommodation, land and facilities, pensions, research and development, para-militaries trained and equipped like the regular army as well as military aid in terms of peace-keeping forces and equipment given to other countries. DE excludes the cost of civil defence, disaster relief and military aid received. This definition has been accepted by most countries across all continents with minor variations and forms the basis of reporting of military expenditure.

Developing countries tend to report lower DE since developmental aid is linked to the quantum of such expenditure. This is achieved by showing legitimate items of expenditure under several heads outside the defense budget. Costs of ministries and accounting departments are generally excluded. Expenditure on military pensions which amounts to 10% to 15% of official DE is excluded by several countries including India (since 1985) and Pakistan (since 2000). Arms imports can be paid for by barter or off the defence budget. Pakistan excludes capital costs. The Rupee deal concluded between India and Russia during the early nineties was primarily a defence deal but was shown as a bilateral commercial agreement. Defense equipment (tanks, guns, ships, aircraft) worth ten billion US dollars (at 1990 rates) was supplied over two decades in exchange for goods exported to Russia. The entire amount was added to the external debt. The Rupee deal was negotiated under favorable terms; however a substantial amount of money was excluded from legitimate DE for several years. The Rupee deal has run its course, so higher levels of expenditure have now started showing up in the defense budget.
The cost of military pensions in the current year is Rs 21,790 crores. This was the entire outlay on defense till as late as 1993-94 and excludes the further hike in pensions announced in the budget for personnel below officer rank amounting to Rs 2,100 crores. The cost of the MoD which includes the outlay on the JAKLI and the Coast Guard, as also the defense accounts department, canteen department and its own secretariat is Rs 3,170 crores. Both these items taken together (Defense Services Estimates, Civil) are debited to several sub-heads under the General Services head. The CPMFs involved in border management, an important aspect of external security (Assam Rifles, BSF, ITBP, and the Sashastra Seema Bal or SSB) cost Rs 11,397 crores. These forces come under the operational control of the army during war just as the Coast Guard comes under the control of the navy. This cost along with the cost of other para-military forces is debited to the Police sub-head within the General Services head. As stated earlier, it is not possible to compute the cost of the nuclear arsenal but post the nuclear deal, we are aware that 35% of reactors are for military use, therefore the cost to be added to the defense budget could be assessed by adding 35% of the budget of the DAE and DOS which is also responsible for the development and testing of longer range ballistic missiles and satellites for military purposes. This amounts to about Rs 4,456 crores. This is a conservative estimate. Thus the official defense budget amounting to Rs 1,41,703 crores excludes an amount of Rs 40,813 crores or 29% of the allotment. DE in aggregate amounts to Rs 1,82,516 crores which is above the 3% GDP limit specified by the EFC. Unfortunately, defence analysts ignore this aspect when discussing the defense budget. Splitting DE amounts to obfuscation and should be avoided since it can confuse planners and parliamentarians alike.
In addition, the cost of border fencing, border roads and military aid to several countries like Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Nepal and Bhutan running into thousands of crores is shown in the expenditure of various other departments and ministries. The fiscal deficit which is expected to hit an all time high of 6.8% in FY 2009-10 is bound to rise further since defense equipment worth over 20 billion dollars or 1.65% of GDP is already in the pipeline or has been cleared for procurement using the import route.
Defense Budgeting and Classification of DE
The British abandoned the system of budgeting being followed in India a few decades ago and adopted a functional system in which accounting is done not only by service but by command functionality. Thus ‘British Forces in Iraq’ is a separate head. The expenditure in each theater of operations is visible and can be assessed. If we need to check the expenditure say in the Siachen sector or on counter-insurgency operations in the Valley, it would need a major exercise. In fact, the first head of account in the British system is ‘Strategic Nuclear Forces’ under which each aircraft, ship, submarine and missile along with warheads and manpower is accounted for.

The current system of budgeting is purely incremental and depends on how much money the Finance Ministry can make available or how much pressure the defence minister can exert on his counterpart in North Block. This has resulted in ad-hoc allotments being made to the services which individually project inflated requirements which are never met. This becomes clear by observing flat-rate increases over the previous year’s budget estimates. There was a 10% hike in the budget estimates for DE for 2008-09 (Rs 105,600 crores) from 2007-08 (Rs 96,000 crores). Similar hikes have been made for several years. The unprecedented hike of 34.2 % this year over last year’s budget estimates is mainly on account of the implementation of the report of the Sixth Pay Commission. Revenue or recurring expenditure takes care of salaries and maintenance and like pensions is a fixed cost. This can be worked out in advance. It would be better if the MoD could indicate the amount of capital funding available service wise for modernization for say five years so that the service chiefs could plan accordingly. This can also take into account the expenditure on internal security and developmental schemes over the same period. This is an exercise which the National Security Council (NSC) should undertake. Larger procurements like the 126 multi-role combat jet aircraft deal could be factored in separately. Ideally, a long term perspective plan should be accepted in advance. Such plans exist on paper but have been ignored by governments across the board since inter-service priorities cannot be decided and resource-mobiliation is always a problem. The plans remain internal projections of the services made to the MoD.

Classification of DE as a percentage of the GDP does not bring out whether the money is being spent efficiently; or given a particular force level, is adequate or inadequate. It also does not reflect the growth of DE if GDP expands over a period of time. India has seen substantial growth over the past several years. Pakistan spends a higher percentage of its GDP on defense; however when we compare the combat potential of the two armed forces in terms of manpower, tanks, ships, aircraft and artillery, Pakistan’s unit spending per combat soldier or tank or ship is much lesser. This aspect is examined in a subsequent paragraph. Besides efficacy (bang for the buck), the intensity of DE (overall share or burden) does not get reflected in its representation as a percentage of GDP. It would be better to compare DE as a percentage of the total budget rather than central government expenditure. In this case, it emerges that whereas India and Pakistan spend between 15% and 25% of the total federal outlay, China spends about 7.5% (China’s National Defense 2008, White Paper on Defense, January 2009). Defense analysts question the transparency of Chinese DE but it must be stated that China’s human indicators are way ahead of India and Pakistan and it can actually afford to spend a higher proportion of its budget on defense, which it does not. Clearly, both the efficacy and intensity of Indian DE needs review. It is not in anyone’s interest that the country has a weak or ill-equipped army, navy and air force but there is need for oversight, economy and prioritization. This was stated unequivocally by the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) in its report (Para 9.24 quoted above). Unfortunately, the Group of Ministers seems to have overlooked this aspect. The KRC was competent to make specific recommendations regarding restructuring and wasteful expenditure but chose not to do so. That the KRC stated that drastic measures were required for the efficient utilization of the defense rupee, amounts to a severe indictment of the state of civil-military affairs. It would be interesting to obtain the views of the members of the KRC on the current levels of defense spending.

The Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Argument

Comparison of military expenditure at market exchange or current rates does not give a correct picture since the cost of manpower, equipment and training varies vastly between countries. This is especially applicable to developing countries like India where goods and services are much cheaper than the developed world. For instance, the cost of equipping, training, paying and maintaining a soldier is about a third in India compared with the US. Similarly, money spent for importing military equipment would buy a much larger basket of civil goods locally. The table below indicates DE of the top ten military spenders for 2008 at both market or current rates and PPP rates and as a percentage of national GDPs for 2007. Also included is the overall percentage share of these countries in world military expenditure and percentage expenditure within the top ten in PPP terms. Conversion to PPP rates has been done using International Comparison Program data (benchmark year 2005), available at the World Bank website, www.worldbank.org.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN CURRENT/PPP US DOLLARS (BILLIONS)
CURRENT(2008) % GDP(2007) % SHARE(World) PPP % SHARE (Top 10)
1. USA 607.0 4.0 41.5 1.USA 607.0 46.0
2.China 84.9 2.0 5.8 2.China 201.8 15.3
3 France 65.7 2.3 4.5 3. Russia 130.1 9.9
4. UK 65.3 2.4 4.5 4. India 90.2 6.8
5. Russia 58.6 3.5 4.0 5. Saudi Arabia 59.4 4.5
6. Germany 46.6 1.3 3.2 6. France 57.2 4.3
7. Japan 46.3 0.9 3.2 7. UK 55.3 4.2
8. Italy 40.6 1.8 2.8 8. Germany 41.9 3.2
9. Saudi Arabia 38.2 9.3 2.6 9. Japan 39.3 3.0
10. India 30.0 2.5 2.1 10. Italy 37.3 2.8

TOP TEN TOTAL 1083.2 74.0 1319.5 100.0
WORLD TOTAL 1464.0 2.4 100.0

Source, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2009 for market rates, percentage of GDP and share of world expenditure. Data pertains to expenditure for 2008 and includes military pensions and allied costs as estimated by SIPRI. SIPRI is of the view that using PPP data for military expenditure has limited relevance. DE for India for 2009 including Defence Services Estimates (Civil) and defined military costs is about 38 billion dollars at current exchange rates.

The top-ten countries incur 74% of total military expenditure. Within the top ten-countries, there is a vast variation of expenditure in absolute terms as well as GDP terms ranging from 0.9% to 9.3% of national GDP. Typically, smaller middle-east countries incur much higher expenditure in GDP terms. World military expenditure has been hovering at about 2.5% of GDP; however the US contribution is very high (41.5%) and boosts the average GDP figure. Thus, military expenditure for the rest of the world amounts to 1.85% of GDP. Indian DE for 2007 at 2.5% of GDP is much higher than this figure. Current spending is at 3.15%. At current market rates, India is at number ten in the list whereas at PPP rates, India is at number four which is in keeping with the fact that it has the third largest army, the fourth largest air force and a blue water navy. India’s DE for 2008 is 90 billion dollars at PPP rates and is touching 115 billion dollars in the current year. Whether this level of expenditure is justified is a matter for civil society including the strategic community to consider. Indian DE amounts to 2.1% of world military expenditure. Within the top ten countries, this amounts to 6.8%at PPP rates and 12.65% if US spending is ignored. Analysts point out that India’s per-capita military expenditure is very low, in fact the lowest in the list above. This is true for current as well as PPPP rates but is considered a specious argument when Indian DE is compared with other items of public spending.

Priorities in Public Spending

The Human Development Report 2008 (www.undp.org) indicates the level of public spending in the areas of health, education and defence. The expenditure includes federal as well as regional or state expenditure. The table below indicates expenditure of selected countries as a percentage of GDP under the three major heads. All figures have been extracted from Table 19 of the UNDP report. To compare the data, intra-country ratios of the three major heads have been calculated. The BRIC group of countries has been included besides figures for USA and UK. Argentina has been included as a special case being a country which graduated from medium to high human development. The countries are listed in descending order of rank in the Human Development Index (HDI).

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (% OF GDP) AND RATIOS THEREOF

Country HDI Rank Health(H) Education(E) Defence(D) Total H/E H/D E/D

USA 12 6.9 5.9 4.1 16.9 1.16 1.68 1.43

UK 16 7.0 5.4 2.7 15.1 1.29 2.59 2.00

ARGENTINA 38 4.3 3.8 1.0 9.1 1.13 4.30 3.80

RUSSIA 67 3.7 3.6 4.1 11.4 1.02 0.90 0.87

BRAZIL 70 4.8 4.4 1.6 10.8 1.09 3.00 2.75

CHINA 81 1.8 1.9 2.0 5.7 0.94 0.90 0.95

INDIA 128 0.9 3.8 2.8 7.5 0.23 0.32 1.35

Data for health pertains to 2004. Data for education and defence expenditure pertains to 2005. The expenditure on health in India is still at about 1% of GDP, federal expenditure being 0.4%. Aggregate expenditure on defence in the current year has crossed 3% of GDP.

There is considerable variation in public spending on health, education and defence between the developed countries (USA and UK) and BRIC countries. This is primarily due to the higher cost of goods and services as discussed in the paragraph on PPP rates above. However ratios between heads can be directly compared. The health to education (H/E) ratio is near or above unity for all countries excluding India which indicates that equal and more often higher weightage has been given to health over education. In the case of India, the ratio is abysmally low. China which is the next lowest is 400% higher. It is apparent that health expenditure as compared to education expenditure needs a substantial hike. The health to defence (H/D) ratio varies considerably between countries. The higher developed countries have a much higher ratio indicating that allocation for health is several times more than the allocation for defense. In the case of India, the ratio is not only the lowest but also about a third of the ratio of the next lowest that is China which is also the next lowest in the list in human development. Health expenditure needs to be hiked by three hundred percent to about 3% of GDP to reach the levels of China. It appears that expenditure on health has been suppressed due to much higher allocations made to both education and defense. The education to defense (E/D) ratios also vary considerably. India is at number five of the seven countries in the list. This perhaps indicates that there is a need to reduce DE since the spending on education seems adequate. There is a pronounced imbalance in public expenditure between the three heads which needs to be corrected. The total per-capita expenditure on health (central as well as state expenditure) is about a third of the per-capita expenditure on defence. This low level of funding is the prime reason for poor health parameters which in turn keeps a large proportion of the population in perpetual debt and poverty. The UN millennium development goals pertaining to mortality rates and poverty are not likely to be achieved mainly on account of poor spending and delivery in the health sector. The Finance Minister in his budget speech has stated that the proportion of poverty would be halved by 2014. This will involve lifting about 100 million people above the poverty line in five years if we use Planning Commission norms. This seems highly unlikely at current levels of health expenditure. The fresh allocation for federal spending on health in the current year is Rs 22,641 crores or merely 0.4% of GDP.

The India-Pakistan Equation

The armed forces of both the countries are organized, trained and equipped in a similar fashion; hence defense related expenditure which is a function of combat power can be compared by a comparison of force levels. Force levels evolve over a period of time depending on threat perceptions. India has vaster land and sea frontiers to guard and therefore needs greater combat power in terms of manpower, tanks, guns, ships and aircraft. The table below indicates manpower levels and major items of armament of the two countries (Source, Indian Defense Yearbook, 2009, Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun).

MAJOR ITEMS CONTRIBUTING TO COMBAT POWER

ITEM INDIA PAKISTAN RATIO

Active Manpower 1.288 million 0.619 million ~ 2:1

Tanks 4059 2461 1.65:1

Guns 4500 1629 2.75:1

Combat Aircraft 565 360 ~ 1.6:1

Ships/Submarines 26/16 6/8 3:1

It will be seen that though the ratios vary between 1.6:1 and 3:1; it would be prudent to take an overall figure of 3:1 since larger armed forces have larger establishments, inventories and tails. This will also be erring on the safe side. Weightage between different items is being ignored though the overall allocation to both armies is much higher than the other two services. This is an indicative ratio which also covers several other items like aircraft carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, naval aviation, transport and training aircraft, helicopters, self propelled artillery and nuclear capabilities not included above. An alternative methodology would be to compare the number of combat units like infantry battalions, armoured and artillery regiments and combat squadrons. This would however yield a comparatively lower ratio since inventories and establishments have a financial impact.

The table below shows the heads of military expenditure of the two countries. DE in Pakistan is much less transparent and excludes several items including capital costs, pensions and nuclear related costs. In addition, foreign military aid which adds to defence capability is excluded. An assessment has been made of these items. Current exchange rates have been used to convert respective currencies into US dollars. Information of Pakistan federal spending has been taken from the website www.finance.gov.pk.

HEADS OF EXPENDITURE 2009-10

ITEM INDIA PAKISTAN

Federal Budget Rs 10,20,837 crores ($ 212.67 billion) Rs 2,48,230 crores ($ 31 billion)

Defence Budget 09-10 Rs 1,41,703 crores ($ 29.52 billion) Rs 34,300 crores ($ 4.28 billion)

Capital Expenditure Rs 54,824 crores included above $ 2.14 billion (50% of above)

Military R and D Included in DE (3.3% of DE) $ 0.24 billion (3.5% of DE)

Pensions Rs 21,790 crores ($ 4.53 billion) $ 1.02 billion (15% of DE)

Foreign Military Aid Nil $ 0.7 billion

TOTAL $ 34.05 billion (16% of Federal Budget) $ 8.38 billion (24.7% of Budget)

% GDP 2.7% 4.5%

The ratio of DE between India and Pakistan works out to about 4:1 when their combat ratio is at 3:1. Though Pakistan is spending a much higher proportion of its GDP on defense, it is getting more bang for the buck. Please note that costs of the MoD, para militaries and nuclear systems have been excluded for both countries. If India were to spend at the rate of Pakistan, it would result in a saving of 8.9 billion dollars or Rs 42,700 crores. This is a significant sum of money amounting to 0.74% of GDP and is nearly double the allocation for federal spending on health. A saving of even half this amount would be significant. The reason for a higher rate of expenditure per combat soldier, tank or ship needs to be assessed. Larger inventories, too many headquarters and establishments, ceremonial units, bands and air display flights of fixed and rotary wing aircraft are only a few areas which need to be looked at. In addition, manpower utilization and rationalization needs examination. Pensions have been rising exponentially. If the retirement age of soldiers subject to their being medically fit is raised to 45 years, a significant amount of money could be saved. Pensions should be payable only after completing 20 years of colour service. In the US army, the age of retirement from active service for enlisted soldiers which was 55 years has now been raised to 62 years. However this has also been done to enable late entrants to complete 20 years of pensionable service. It is interesting to note that the official allocation for the Pakistan defense budget falls short of the expenditure on military pensions paid by India even though the overall percentage spending on defense is much higher. The entire outlay of the Pakistan budget is well below India’s outlay on defense spending. Using the $ 1.25 a day norm, poverty rates in Pakistan are significantly lower at 22.6% compared to 41.6% for India (www.undp.org). Clearly, military spending and muscle has not improved the lot of the common Indian citizen.

Internal / External Security

During the tenure of the NDA government, a separate head of accounts was created for police-modernization. It had become clear that state police forces were neither equipped nor trained to tackle terrorism. Law and order being a state subject, it was rightly appreciated that resources available with states were inadequate to meet the requirement of procuring automatic weapons, as also bomb-disposal and protective equipment. This was reinforced in a big way when terrorists struck Mumbai. Lathi wielding policemen had to grapple with terrorists armed with automatic weapons. It has become obvious that allocations made over the years were inadequate to meet even minimal requirements. The amount allocated during FY 2008-09 was a mere Rs 1,340 crores. Even this amount was not fully utilized. Post Mumbai, this was increased to Rs 1,385 crores in the interim budget and to Rs 1,815 crores in the budget announced on 6 July. DE was hiked by thirty five thousand crores. Police modernization continues to be neglected.

Coastal security has been ignored at the country’s peril. In 1993, the sea route was used to land explosives for the Bombay blasts. In 1994, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, EEZs of littoral countries were extended from 100 to 200 nautical miles. India ratified UNCLOS III in 1995. The Coast Guard which is responsible for the EEZ was thus required to cover a much vaster area with the same resources. Over the years, ships and aircraft have been acquired but with some eighty vessels and fifty aircraft, guarding an EEZ of over two million square kilometers is a near impossible task. The Navy being the senior service should have been given this responsibility with the resources of the Coast Guard under its command. A blue water navy is of little use when the seaboards remain unprotected. The resources of the states and the local marine police need upgrading. The concept of making the marine police entirely responsible for waters which extend to five nautical miles (9.25 km) needs a re-look. There is a need for integration between internal and external security and defense on both the land and sea frontiers.

Force levels of CPMFs have been rising steadily and it is expected that a million men will be under arms by the end of the next financial year (2010-11). The threat posed by the Naxalite insurgency has been gaining momentum. Merely deploying additional forces will not resolve the issue and will result in militarization of the state. Development of infrastructure, creation of employment and improving health parameters should be undertaken on priority. CPMFs deployed in these areas must also have access to resources which can be used to win over hearts and minds by constructing schools and health centers. Op-Sadbhavana conducted by the army in Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is an excellent example of security forces getting involved in development.

Defense Production and the Arms Bazaar

India with the third largest Army in the world, the fourth largest Air Force and a blue water navy is today a doubtful regional power due to its weak economy and dependence on imports of armaments. - - - The danger is that with the thaw in our relations with the USA and our craze for new gadgetry, we could easily fall into the laps of salesmen. Hard thinking is necessary before we keep changing our technology base.

Coonoor 1994 Sam Manekshaw
Field Marshal
(In a foreword to ‘Indian Arms Bazaar’ by Maj Gen Partap Narain, Shipra Publications, New Delhi, 1994)

Defense production and procurement is a major area of concern. There are thirty nine Ordnance Factories and eight public sector undertakings (PSUs) employing over 300,000 workers producing ships, tanks, guns, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft besides ammunition, boots and tents. Yet, we import the bulk of our cutting edge weaponry. Production capacities are not being utilized. The cost of items is borne by the services from within the defense budget. Some items produced by Ordnance Factories are more expensive than the cost of import. The Arjun tank powered by a German engine, developed by DRDO and now being manufactured at Avadi is one such item. The Light Combat Aircraft or LCA, when inducted will be another. Defense PSUs like BEL and BEML make higher profits since their products are used by sectors other than defence; however defence PSUs even while showing nominal profits need heavy capital investment which comes from the PSU pool. Thus the real cost of defense production does not get reflected in DE. Some of the Ordnance Factories can be closed down and the equipment can be manufactured by the private sector. This is difficult to implement since defense workers form a fair-sized vote bank and have strong unions. The state therefore continues to subsidize the inefficient use of resources at the cost of developmental spending.

The Defence R and D establishment (DRDO) needs major overhaul. The P Rama Rao Committee has made several recommendations. Large establishments not producing worthwhile results need to be pruned. There have been a few success stories like the Agni series of missiles. The DRDO works in isolation and the services tend to disregard its capabilities. Some laboratories could be merged to make the organisation more cost effective. This is a subject for evaluation after the implementation of the Rama Rao Committee Report. The DRDO takes up Rs 4,757 crores which is 3.3% of the defense budget. In addition, an amount of Rs 3,723 crores has been charged to capital expenditure which is a combined head for the three services for equipment development and delivery. Like the DRDO, the quality-control and inspectorate organization is bulky and seems to have too many overheads.

The forces prefer import to indigenous production for a variety of reasons including the inability of the DRDO to meet qualitative requirements (QRs) and the inordinate delay in the production of the equipment. The forces themselves must take a part of the blame for projecting unreal requirements. This does not happen when the import route is used since QRs are formulated to conform to the range of equipment available. Weapon systems have a life cycle of about 20 years which gets written down if it takes ten years to produce the equipment. Politicians and bureaucrats, both civil and military, prefer the import route especially from western countries for extraneous reasons. The Defense Procurement Procedure (DPP) has been streamlined, yet an important aspect like offsets has yet to yield the required dividends. The problem of middlemen has been resolved by foreign suppliers opening offices in New Delhi. There has been a proliferation of defense glossies supported directly or indirectly by arms manufacturers. India has become a hub of the world’s arms bazaar. Little wonder that foreign manufacturers want a hike in the 26% FDI limit imposed on joint ventures in the defense sector.

Conclusions

Besides external defense, internal security and human-development form a vital part of the overall security and well-being of the nation. Is the rupee being spent wisely? The answer is in the negative both in terms of quantum and efficacy. DE has risen to unsustainable levels in the last decade primarily on account of dependence on imports and nuclearization. There is a trade-off between defense and developmental spending specifically in the area of health which becomes visible in poor human-development parameters like infant mortality rates and child malnutrition. Bangladesh is well ahead of India in these parameters. Internal security has been neglected for too long. There is a need to balance overall expenditure to meet the challenge of the emerging economic and strategic scenario. Force levels need to be reviewed. Like obsolete equipment, obsolete organizations should be dispensed with. The army has become equipment and staff oriented. It also remains manpower-intensive with too few junior officers and a large tail. The Thirteenth Finance Commission could look into aspects of internal and external security to come to a reasonable limit for both. It would also be expedient if the Commission specifies what constitutes defense spending and whether Defense Services Civil Estimates should form part of defense expenditure. DE must be capped at current levels.

The effects of the global recession are still to play out. Oversight, therefore, needs to be exercised in all areas of government spending. There is no scope for empire building. The plan to send two men into space at a cost of Rs 12,500 crores is an example of incorrect priorities. The defense forces form an important part of the nation’s fabric, yet they must not be a drain on its limited resources. For the armed forces, the country comes first, always and every time and they will rise to the occasion as always. The political leadership must therefore take the service chiefs into confidence with regard to the fiscal situation. With global warming on the horizon; floods, droughts and severe cyclonic storms will occur with increasing frequency. Water is going to be in short supply. These are only some of the challenges which the country and its armed forces will face in the not too distant future. Wars as we have known them will more often be avoided. Hence the need for a lean armed force, a well equipped and trained police force and state policy which will deter a potential aggressor from posing a conventional, nuclear or asymmetrical threat. Only then can the war against poverty and hunger be won.

Colonel Pavan Nair, the author of this guest post, is an engineer by training, and a retired Indian Army officer who has served with distinction in Bangladesh, Kashmir and Sri Lanka. His email address is pavannair1@gmail.com.

Related Links:

Pakistan Must Fix Primary Education Crisis

Pakistani Children's Plight
India's Arms Buildup
Growing US-India Military Ties Worry Pakistan

India: Home to World's Largest Illiterate Population

India-Pakistan Military Balance

South Asia Human Development Slipping

India and Pakistan Contrasted in 2010

Introduction to Defense Economics

Hindutva Terror to Spark India-Pakistan War?

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned in New Delhi today that Al-Qaeda is trying to destabilize the whole of South Asia hoping to provoke a deadly war between India and Pakistan, according to the BBC. In addition to Al-Qaeda, he has pointed the finger at the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba as groups seeking to spark conflict between India and Pakistan, or to provoke instability in Pakistan.

Mr. Gates is only partially correct. Conspicuously absent from his list of the region's "bad guys" are the Hindutva terrorist outfits who are implicated in a series of bombings designed to fan the flames of hatred between Hindus and Muslims and then blame Pakistan for their handiwork. As India's minister P. Chidambram put it recently, "The tactics of the jihadis have been copied by militants belonging to other groups too, not excluding militants professing the Hindu faith."

In a new book titled "Who Killed Karkare?"(published by Pharos Media), the author and former Maharashtra police chief S.M. Mushrif says a nationwide network of Hindutva terrorists that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy India's secularism and to reshape it into a theocratic state like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Mushrif has constructed an alarming picture out of former Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s indictment of alleged Hindutva terrorists like Lt. Col. Purohit, Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and others. It showed a major nationwide conspiracy with international support to destabilize the secular democratic Indian state to be replaced by a Hindutva state run according to a new Constitution. For that the conspirators were prepared for a massive bloodbath, using bomb attacks on religious places to trigger an anti-Muslim holocaust.

These Hindutva terror groups, and their affiliates, have carried out a number of bomb blasts across India in the last few years, and tried to pin the blame on Indian Muslims or the Pakistan's intelligence service ISI. Mushrif describes nearly a dozen blasts conducted by Hindutva terror groups of different stripes. He argues that a section of India’s intelligence services, a small group in the armed forces and parts of different state police forces have been compromised and infiltrated by these elements, a development that bodes ill for the future of the country, and the region. Some of the blasts, such as the bombing of Samjhota Express, had been falsely blamed on Pakistan's ISI to try and heighten tensions in South Asia. The circumstances around the assassination of Mumbai anti-terror squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karakare, who was pursuing some the major Hindutva figures involved in the bombing campaigns in India, have not been investigated. Demands by Karakare's wife for independent investigation and transparency have been ignored.

Mushrif believes that it is not Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh or Rahul Gandhi who actually run India on a day-to-day basis. Rather, it is a "power establishment" that is in charge of India, and it does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorists. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif quotes a report in The Times of India that said, “the Center had blamed the ISI on the basis of the IB’s findings.” However, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, which draws its power from its proximity to the Prime Minister (its director briefs the PM every morning for half an hour), did not want Karkare’s investigation that blew the cover off the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

In a recent article titled "Procrastinating on Hindutva Terror", Subash Gatade describes a number of bomb blasts carried out by Hindutva groups in India, and talks about how the investigators have been dragging their feet on such incidents where the perpetrators attempted to frame innocent Muslims. Among others, the author describes Goa and Malegaon blasts which were blamed on Muslim youths. Here is what it says:

In a writeup in Indian Express (8 Nov, 2009)"Goa Bombers Tried To Leave Muslim Imprint" the reporter even quotes another police officer on the condition of anonymity " The material was enough to spark communal trouble in Margao and extremist elements from outside would have found it easy to aggravate it." A close look at the plan to 'leave Muslim imprint' had echoes of earlier attempts by Hindutva terrorists of different hues to spark communal tension. The Malegaon bomb blast in 2008 which saw the exposure of the wide Hindutva terrorist network - thanks to the efforts of a committed officer like Hemant Karkare - had also seen similar actions by the fanatics. In fact the members of Abhinav Bharat had parked their explosive laden motorcycle below the defunct office of the SIMI in Bhikhu Chowk, Malegaon. The Nanded bomb blast in 2006 had also seen fake beards and dresses normally worn by Muslims at the house of the terrorists who had died in the bomb blasts.

Another Indian writer, Yoginder Sikand, has been following the story of Muslims framed by India's police and intelligence agencies in various incidents of violence. Here is what he wrote:

For several months now, almost no week passes without the media reporting about 'dreaded Muslim fundamentalists' being picked up by the police and allegedly confessing to being involved in bomb blasts or plots to engineer violence across India. It is not my argument that all of these reports are cooked-up and dished-out propaganda. Some of these stories must be true, and those behind such acts must be caught and punished. But, the fact remains, many of these stories circulating in the media are wholly fabricated, and these are being manufactured and highlighted for a particular motive: to fuel anti-Muslim passions and, thereby, justify various forms of discrimination and oppression—even murder—of hapless Muslim citizens who, far from having anything to do with terrorism, are victims of terror—of agencies of the state, especially the police and Hindutva terror outfits.

Earlier this month, Indian Occupied Kashmir's People's Democratic Party leader Mehbooba Mufti alleged that the recent Srinagar hotel attack was an attempt by "some government agency" to sabotage the efforts to withdraw troops from the state. “Maybe some militant groups don’t want the troop withdrawal, maybe somebody in the agencies don’t want the troop withdrawal. So I think for their interests, they become one at this point of time. But I would say that the withdrawal of troops is the best compliment that you can pay to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have voted in huge numbers,” she added.

Recently, India's Vice President Hamid Ansari has called for greater "oversight and accountability" of the operations of the nation's intelligence agencies by the Indian parliament. Ansari also said that, just like in other democracies like the US and the UK, the “concerned agencies should make public their mission statement, outlining periodically their strategic intent, vision, mission, core values and their goals”.

As India constantly highlights the terror of green variety, it must not ignore its own homegrown terror dressed in saffron. The terror of either hue has the potential to spark a deadly conflict in South Asia that can easily spin out of control, and completely devastate the region.

Related Links:

Who Killed Karkare?

Procrastinating on Hindutva Terror

India's Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs

Hindutva Government in Israeli Exile?

Growing US-India Military Ties Worry Pakistan

Taliban or Rawliban?

The 21st Century Challenges For Resurgent India

What Irked Purohit?

Hindu Rashtra ideology was driving force for Malegaon conspirators

Hindutva Terror Strikes India

The Rise and Rise of Mangalore's Taliban

Malegaon Files

Hindu Nationalists Gang Up on Musharraf at Stanford

Can India "Do a Lebanon" in Pakistan?

Priest Survivor: Hindu Radicals are Terrorists

Dawn of Hindutva Terror in India

Ajmer Blasts: Revisiting Hindutva Terror

Hindu Militants Copying Jihadi Tactics

Growing India-US Military Ties Worry Pakistan

The Afghan Taliban suicide bombers brazenly struck in the heart of Kabul while American Defense Secretary Robert Gates was still en route to New Delhi to further expand the already growing US-India military ties. Was this loud message by the Afghan insurgents to the Pentagon chief timed to remind the world of the precarious nature of the US-NATO military mission in Afghanistan? Will this terrorist reminder affect what Gates does in Delhi?

Regardless of what the Taliban intended, it is how the Kabul attack is viewed by the Pentagon chief and his boss that will shape the US policy in the region. In response to a query by the New York Times reporter Elizabeth Bumiller traveling with the entourage, Mr. Gates had little to say about the Taliban suicide bombings near Mr. Karzai’s palace in the center of Kabul. “These highly visible attacks are a tactic in this conflict, and it’s very hard to stop all of them,” he said as he tried to play it down when he spoke to the New York Times.


"There are also a lot of...defense acquisitions that are on the table," AP quoted Lalit Mansingh, the former Indian ambassador to the United States, as saying on Tuesday, shortly before Gates' arrival.

India is expected to become a major customer for the US military-industrial complex over the next few years, according to PressTV.

American Defense officials, however, have said that US weapons sales to India would not be a focus of the trip. Regardless of such denials, the key reason for the Gates' visit can be found in the fact that India is planning to raise its military budget by 50% to almost $40 billion, making military expenditure 3% of the annual gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast to India's planned defense expenditures, Pakistan's entire 2009-10 budget amounts to little over $30 billion.

"Our current defense spending is lower than 2% [of GDP]...and it should be at least 3%," A. K. Antony said at a meeting with top military commanders last year, without specifying a time-frame. India raised its defense spending in February, 2008, by 10% to $26.5 billion for the fiscal year 2008-2009, but it still fell below 2% of GDP for the first time in at least a decade.

India's neighbors and long-term rivals, Pakistan and China, allocate around 3.5% and 4.3% of GDP to defense, respectively. The minister said top priority must be given to the modernization of the Indian Armed Forces and half of the defense budget should be allocated for the purchase of new military equipment.

Currently, more than half of India's budget is allocated for military, paramilitary, police, various security forces and debt servicing. That leaves less than half for everything else, including infrastructure development projects, education, healthcare, poverty alleviation, and various human services. This new arms buildup by India will leave even less for what India needs most: to lift hundreds of millions of its citizens from abject poverty, hunger, illiteracy, squalor and disease.

The US and Russian support is emboldening India's military, and its leadership has already started saber rattling against Pakistan and China. Recently, Lt-General A S Lamba of Indian Army has been quoted by the Indian media as boating about a "massive thrust into Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of assault." Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has said India is ready for a “the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be able to go to war promptly) in the multiple fronts against multiple different militias at the same time.” General Kapoor has talked about taking on China and Pakistan at the same time.

Such an arms buildup by India is sure to threaten India's neighbors and fuel an arms race that South Asians can ill afford with widespread abject poverty, hunger, malnutrition and very low levels of human development. According to media reports from Islamabad, Pakistan has responded to India's aggressive intents by deciding to expand its missile program.

Pakistan has expressed serious concerns over a "massive" arms buildup by India, warning the buildup could destabilize the regional balance. Pakistan's National Command Authority, which oversees the country's nuclear assets, has taken note of developments "detrimental" to the objectives of strategic stability in the region, an official statement said last week.

"India continues to pursue an ambitious militarization program and offensive military doctrines," the command said, after a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

"Massive inductions of advanced weapon systems, including installation of ABMs (anti-ballistic missiles), buildup of nuclear arsenal and delivery systems...tend to destabilize the regional balance," it said.

The human cost of this unfortunate escalation by India will mainly be born by its most vulnerable citizens who will probably lose the few crumbs of bread they are forced to live on now. It will continue the horrible sanitation situation that forces two-thirds of Indians to defecate in the open that spreads disease and kills millions of various diseases each year.

According to UNICEF, scientific evidence available today tells us that in India alone more than 1 million child lives could be saved from scaling up known and proven cost effective interventions. With over 240 million children under the age of five, India contributes 25 percent of the world’s child deaths. It is evident that a major turnaround in India will ensure a significant impact globally!

The Education For All-Global Monitoring Report, released recently, says that out of the total 759 million illiterate adults in the world, India still has the highest number. “Over half of the illiterate adults live in just four countries: Bangladesh, China, India and Pakistan,” the report said, adding the progress has been “painfully slow” and threatens to obstruct the Millennium Development Goals.

India has failed to use a period of high economic growth to lift tens of millions of people out of poverty, falling far short of China’s record in protecting its population from the ravages of chronic hunger, United Nations officials said recently. Last year, British Development Minister Alexander contrasted the rapid growth in China with India's economic success - highlighting government figures that showed the number of poor people had dropped in the one-party communist state by 70% since 1990 but had risen in the world's biggest democracy by 5%.

The World Hunger Index of 88 countries published by IFPRI last year ranked India at 66 while Pakistan was slightly better at 61 and Bangladesh slightly worse at 70. There are very few place where people are poorer or hungrier than Haiti, which recently suffered a massive tragedy. However, Bangladesh and some states in India and Sub-Saharan Africa have much higher levels of hunger and malnutrition than Haiti. In addition to Bangladesh and the nations of sub Saharan Africa, the Indian states of Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh are worse off than Haiti, according to India's State Hunger Index (ISHI) survey report. Gujarat is often projected as a success story by the right-wing Indian media. The economy of Gujarat is sustaining an overall growth rate of eight percentage points, but the incidence of rural poverty declined at the annual rate of 0.23 per cent, which is the worst Human Development Index (HDI) improvement record among all Indian states. From 1996 to 2006, Gujarat slipped one rank each in education and health indices to eight and tenth positions, respectively, as compared to 20 other states. In improvement in Infant Mortality Rate, it ranked 13th. The state ranked 14th in Child Mortality Rate, 13th in TMR, 17th in stunted children and ninth in underweight children. What it says is that economic growth alone can not solve the problems of poverty and malnutrition in Gujarat, or India, or the rest of the world. Economic growth has to be accompanied with progressive policies to uplift the most vulnerable populations in society.

In the context of unprecedented economic growth (9-10 percent annually) and national food security, over 60 percent of Indian children are wasted, stunted, underweight or a combination of the above. As a result, India ranks number 62 along with Bangladesh at 67 in the PHI (Poverty Hunger Index)ranking out of a total of 81 countries. Both nations are included among the low performing countries in progress towards MDG1 (Millennium Development Goals) with countries such as Nepal (number 58), Ethiopia (number 60), or Zimbabwe (number 74).

Ranked at 45 on PHI index, Pakistan is well ahead of India at number 62, and it is included in the medium performing countries. PHI is a new composite indicator – the Poverty and Hunger Index (PHI) – developed to measure countries’ performance towards achieving MDG1 on halving poverty and hunger by 2015. The PHI combines all five official MDG1 indicators, including a) the proportion of population living on less than US$ 1/day, b) poverty gap ratio, c) share of the poorest quintile in national income or consumption, d) prevalence of underweight in children under five years of age, and d) the proportion of population undernourished.

In addition to large purchases of weapons from India's traditional suppliers Russia and Britain, the massive Indian military build up has been fueled by at least $5 billion in purchases from Israel during the last three years, according to UPI. The US has sold India $3 billion in American arms in 2008, the year that Mr. Gates was last in India, according to the New York Times.

One of the items on the agenda for Gates visit is India's demand for US defense technology. While Russia has been openly sharing its defense technology with India, Indian officials have long been frustrated by the quality, maintainability and effectiveness of Russian military hardware. The Indians are looking for alternatives to reduce their dependence on Russia, but the US reluctance to share technology has been an issue. The American refusal to share US technology has also restricted some of the India-Israel defense deals, such as the transfer of US-funded Arrow anti-ballistic missiles to India.

Gates has agreed that the Defense Department would do more to help Indian officials understand legal agreements the U.S. needs before certain technology could be shared to accomplish more joint exercises and operations, the U.S. official told the New York Times.

While the absence of technology agreements doesn’t hinder more joint efforts, it does limit their scope, Gates told reporters on his plane en route to New Delhi. The accords, including one for protecting technology, are standard for the U.S. when it works with military partners and may set out terms such as what information can and cannot be revealed.

As Mr. Gates responds to India's desire to increase US defense purchases with technology sharing, he needs to carefully calibrate the impact of US actions on the success of the US mission in Afghanistan. Gates must also recognize the link between lack of social spending and political instability in the region. Secretary Gates must not forget that the closer US defense cooperation with India will make it less likely that Pakistan will trust the US intentions in the region, particularly in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates needs to remember that US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal warned in his report last year that "increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”

After his India visit, Secretary Gates is expected to also visit Islamabad to meet Pakistan's civilian and military leadership, according to Pakistan's Dawn newspaper. Mr Gates thus joins the list of of senior US officials to visit Islamabad since Obama began developing a new strategy for the Pakistan-Afghan region late last year. Senior administration officials who have come to Islamabad recently include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and others.

Related Links:

India's Massive Arms Buildup

Indian Arms Buildup and Problems with Russia

Haitian Tragedy Compounded by Poverty

China's Growing Role in Afghanistan

Pakistan's Concern Over Indian Arms Buildup

India's Missile Shield and Israel Envy Threaten Pakistan

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Poverty and Hunger Index--PHI

UNESCO Education For All Report

World Bank Report on Malnutrition in South Asia

India: Home to Largest Illiterate Population

Salman, Bulleh Shah, Hava Nagila in Silicon Valley

World renowned Pakistani rock singer Salman Ahmad -- the "Bono of South Asia"-- led a group of Muslim and Jewish musicians last weekend in Palo Alto, in support of Abraham's Vision and the Salman and Samina Global Wellness Initiative (SSGWI). The concert was also promoted by Pakistani-American Cultural Center (PACC) in Silicon Valley, California.

It was a high energy performance that brought the audience to their feet, with loud cheers, and ecstatic dancing to an eclectic mix of music with origins in South Asia (Saleem Ahmad on tabla) and Central and Eastern Europe (Yale Strom with fiddle, and an accordionist).

Dubbed as "Unity Jam", the concert began with Salman Ahmad and Elizabeth Schwartz singing the poetry of Punjabi Sufi Saint Baba Buellh Shah (Punjabi: بلہے شاہ, ਬੁੱਲ੍ਹੇ ਸ਼ਾਹ), and ended with the popular Jewish folk song of Hava Nagila (הבה נגילה in Hebrew), and John Lennon's "Imagine".

Baba Bulleh Shah's poetry carries the messages of romance, love and tolerance that constitute a solid foundation for any inter-faith efforts to resolve conflicts, and to bring peace and harmony to a world torn by hatred, terror and violence. For example, one of the poems chosen by Salman Ahmad for the concert goes like this:

Masjid dha de, mandir dha de, dha de jo kucch dainda
(Tear down the mosque and the temple; break everything in sight)
Par kisi da dil na dhain, Rab dilan vich rehnda..
(But do not break a person’s heart, it is there that God resides)

Another wise choice of Salman from Bullleh Shah's poetry:

Bulleh! ki jaana maen kaun
(Bulleh! to me, I am not known)
Na maen momin vich maseet aan
(Not a believer inside the mosque, am I)
Na maen vich kufar diyan reet aan
(Nor a pagan disciple of false rites)
Na maen paakaan vich paleet aan
(Not the pure amongst the impure)
Na maen moosa na pharaun.
(Neither Moses, nor the Pharoh)

The Unity Jam was sponsored by Abraham's Vision, which says "it empowers future Jewish and Muslim leaders to reach their potential to transform deep-rooted conflicts through unique, experiential educational programs" and SSGWI that "is working to bringing relief to Pakistan's three million internally displaced refugees". The concert attracted a large number of young men and women of Islamic and Jewish faiths, some of whom spoke movingly about their fervent hopes for peace, and explained the reasons for their participation as fellows of Abraham's Vision program.

Salman Ahmad has been using his musical talent and writings to help Pakistanis deal with the growing Taliban threat. Last year, he joined Deepak Chopra in publishing an Op Ed titled "Pakistan's War is Cultural, Not Military" that was published in San Francisco Chronicle. The OP Ed piece said that "Pakistan is a war zone, but its battle is far more cultural than military. The whole country realizes this fact and is holding its breath, hoping that President Obama will come to the same realization. As long as the United States pursues the futile military policy of the Bush years, the situation in Pakistan will grow increasingly dire."

In another opinion piece published by the Washington Post, Salman Ahmad and Pakistani filmmaker Kamran Pasha condemned the Taliban as "the enemies of Pakistan and Islam". Salman and Kamran wrote as follows in their opinion:

Despite the distorted teaching of extremists like the Taliban, the truth is that the Holy Qur’an does not establish any form of government. Indeed, it is disputes over politics and leadership that split the Muslim community into two sects, Sunni and Shia. The very idea of imposition of religion on others goes against the heart of the Qur’an. In Surah 2:256, the Qur’an says forcefully: “There is no compulsion in religion.”

Even the notion of imposing “Islamic law” is nonsensical, as the very idea of a monolithic body of religious rules agreed to by the Muslim community has no basis in Islamic history. There is no unified notion of Sharia. Over the past 1,400 years, many schools of law have developed, each with its own doctrines and jurisprudence, and with contradictory rulings on many matters. Sharia is not a codified body of rules, but a dynamic interaction between scholars, jurists and the Muslim community.



In a recent book titled "Rock and Roll Jihad", Salman talks about his journey in an increasingly hostile environment, facing down angry mullahs and oppressive dictators who wanted all music to be banned from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He talks about his band Junoon, a "sufi - rock" group that broke boundaries and sold thirty million records. Salman's story begins in New York, where he spent his teen years learning to play guitar, listening to Led Zeppelin, hanging out at rock clubs and Beatles concerts, making American friends, and dreaming of stardom. That dream almost died when his family returned to Pakistan, and Salman was forced to follow the new rules of piety imposed by Zia's regime. But his persistence has paid off. As expected by his parents, he did finish medical school in Lahore, and then went back to his love of music, and he has stayed with it ever since. Along with his music, he has lent his celebrity and talent for various humanitarian causes, most recently focusing on helping a large number of internal refugees created by the ongoing conflict in Pakistan.

The book was offered after the concert, with Salman on hand to personally sign it. I bought my autographed copy after being told that the proceeds will go toward helping the refugees.

There is a lot of talk about the "clash of civilizations" in the Western media in the context of the US "war on terror", but little is reported about the fierce clash of ideas going on within the Islamic civilization. The polls continue to show distrust of the United States in the Islamic World, mostly based on the US policies that are perceived as unjust by the majority of the world's Muslims. The list of Muslim grievances against the United States is long, stretching from its support of the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine to its role in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition to the increasing drone attacks and rising suspicions about the role of the CIA, there are new and explosive revelations about the role and the strength of Blackwater contractors in the region. A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine have alleged that Blackwater chief Erik Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life." The number of US contractors working for the US military and the CIA in the region exceeds the total strength of the US troops and CIA personnel, according to estimates by Jimmy Scahill who has researched and written extensively about Blackwater. The presence of over 80,000 US military and intelligence contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan makes the level of privatization of war unprecedented.

However, it would be wrong to conclude from such reports that any more than a tiny minority of the followers of the Islamic faith support the terrorists inspired by al Qaeda's ideology of hate. In a recent International Republican Institute (IRI) poll, eighty percent of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the United States on the "war on terror," a figure that shot up 19 points since March. At the same time, 86 percent agreed that Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants posed a problem for Pakistan and more than two-thirds supported a recent Pakistani army offensive on extremists.

The clash within the Islamic world is happening at all levels and in all spheres of life in Pakistan, from culture to academia, mass media, military and politics. It is best for the West to extend support and stop their hostility toward the Islamic world, and let the Muslims sort out their differences among
themselves.

Acknowledgment: Photographs by Nasreen Aboobaker

Here's a documentary on Islam narrated by Benazir Bhutto:



Related Links:

Taliban--Enemies of Pakistan and Islam

Pakistan's War is Cultural, Not Military

Rock and Roll Jihad: A Muslim Rock Star's Revolution

Life Goes On in Pakistan

Alam Versus Hoodbhoy: The Clash Within Islam

Have a Murree with your Currie

CIA's Secret War in Pakistan

Pakistani-American Cultural Center, Silicon Valley

Junoon--Pakistani Rock Band

Pakistani Rock Music

Pakistani Entrepreneurs Survive Downturn

Is Haiti's Tragic Disaster Entirely Natural?

As a long time resident of the San Francisco Bay Area living near a major fault, I am quite conscious of the potentially devastating impact of "The Big One" forecast to to hit California at some unknown date in the future. A 1906 San Francisco earthquake, measuring about 7.9 on the Richter scale, caused widespread damage and claimed at least 700 lives. A similar sized earthquake centered in Kashmir, measuring about 7.6 on Richter scale, hit northern and western Pakistan in 2005 and claimed 75,000 lives.

Another big tremor struck the Bay Area in 1989 which I personally experienced. The 7.0 Loma Prieta shaker in 1989 caused 63 deaths. This week, a major earthquake, also measuring a magnitude of 7.0, struck near Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Early Red Cross estimates indicate that between 45,000 and 50,000 people have died. Haiti quake's aftermath is not entirely a natural disaster story. This is a story of abject poverty caused by years of corruption and mismanagement. It’s a story about shoddy construction, bad infrastructure and poor public services.

How poor is Haiti? The best way to answer this question is to describe dirt cookies consumed by a very large population in Haiti. These cookies are literally made from dirt with a small amount of flour and sugar mixed in to make them relatively palatable. While these dirt cookies do fill the hungry stomachs of the poor, there is very little nutrition in them. Why is Haiti so poor and underdeveloped? Well, it does have a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. Post-independence Haiti has endured bad governance, corruption and foreign invasions. Others, like Barbados and Dominican Republic which shares the island Hispaniola with Haiti, have done much better than Haiti in spite of similar problems.

There are very few place where people are poorer or hungrier than Haiti, with the exception of Bangladesh and some states in India and Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to Bangladesh and the nations of sub Saharan Africa, the Indian states of Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh are worse off than Haiti, according to India's State Hunger Index (ISHI) survey report. Gujarat is often projected as a success story by the right-wing Indian media. The economy of Gujarat is sustaining an overall growth rate of eight percentage points, but the incidence of rural poverty declined at the annual rate of 0.23 per cent, which is the worst Human Development Index (HDI) improvement record among all Indian states. From 1996 to 2006, Gujarat slipped one rank each in education and health indices to eight and tenth positions, respectively, as compared to 20 other states. In improvement in Infant Mortality Rate, it ranked 13th. The state ranked 14th in Child Mortality Rate, 13th in TMR, 17th in stunted children and ninth in underweight children. What it says is that economic growth alone can not solve the problems of poverty and malnutrition in Gujarat, or India, or the rest of the world. Economic growth has to be accompanied with progressive policies to uplift the most vulnerable populations in society.

Obviously, the first order of business for all of the peoples and the governments of the world is to provide emergency aid and comfort to the survivors of the monumental tragedy unfolding in Haiti. We should all donate time, money and other resources that each of us can to our Haitian brothers and sisters in humanity in their most difficult hour. Most major international relief organizations such as Red Cross, UNICF, Islamic Relief, Hidaya Foundation, Edhi Foundation and others have online portals for aiding Haitians in dire need of immediate assistance.

There are soldiers and rescuers helping the relief effort from across the world, including Pakistani soldiers wearing blue UN helmets deployed in Haiti. Relief supplies are flown in by the American military to the only airport with just on runway in Port-au-Prince.

Beyond immediate help, it's important for the world to find ways of alleviating the abject poverty, recurring hunger and deprivation of the Haitian people and other victims of poverty and hunger in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Reducing poverty and hunger and improving governance in these parts of the world can help reduce their everyday suffering and prevent the repeat of at least the man-made contribution to massive tragedies resulting from natural disasters in the future.

Here is an interesting Op Ed by David Brooks in the New York Times discussing Haiti and the problems of reducing poverty in developing nations:

On Oct. 17, 1989, a major earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck the Bay Area in Northern California. Sixty-three people were killed. This week, a major earthquake, also measuring a magnitude of 7.0, struck near Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The Red Cross estimates that between 45,000 and 50,000 people have died.

This is not a natural disaster story. This is a poverty story. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services. On Thursday, President Obama told the people of Haiti: “You will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten.” If he is going to remain faithful to that vow then he is going to have to use this tragedy as an occasion to rethink our approach to global poverty. He’s going to have to acknowledge a few difficult truths.

The first of those truths is that we don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty. Over the past few decades, the world has spent trillions of dollars to generate growth in the developing world. The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.

In the recent anthology “What Works in Development?,” a group of economists try to sort out what we’ve learned. The picture is grim. There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.

The chastened tone of these essays is captured by the economist Abhijit Banerjee: “It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control.”

The second hard truth is that micro-aid is vital but insufficient. Given the failures of macrodevelopment, aid organizations often focus on microprojects. More than 10,000 organizations perform missions of this sort in Haiti. By some estimates, Haiti has more nongovernmental organizations per capita than any other place on earth. They are doing the Lord’s work, especially these days, but even a blizzard of these efforts does not seem to add up to comprehensive change.

Third, it is time to put the thorny issue of culture at the center of efforts to tackle global poverty. Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well. Haiti has endured ruthless dictators, corruption and foreign invasions. But so has the Dominican Republic, and the D.R. is in much better shape. Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same island and the same basic environment, yet the border between the two societies offers one of the starkest contrasts on earth — with trees and progress on one side, and deforestation and poverty and early death on the other.

As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.

We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.

Fourth, it’s time to promote locally led paternalism. In this country, we first tried to tackle poverty by throwing money at it, just as we did abroad. Then we tried microcommunity efforts, just as we did abroad. But the programs that really work involve intrusive paternalism.

These programs, like the Harlem Children’s Zone and the No Excuses schools, are led by people who figure they don’t understand all the factors that have contributed to poverty, but they don’t care. They are going to replace parts of the local culture with a highly demanding, highly intensive culture of achievement — involving everything from new child-rearing practices to stricter schools to better job performance.

It’s time to take that approach abroad, too. It’s time to find self-confident local leaders who will create No Excuses countercultures in places like Haiti, surrounding people — maybe just in a neighborhood or a school — with middle-class assumptions, an achievement ethos and tough, measurable demands.

The late political scientist Samuel P. Huntington used to acknowledge that cultural change is hard, but cultures do change after major traumas. This earthquake is certainly a trauma. The only question is whether the outside world continues with the same old, same old.

Related Links:

Aid, Trade, Investments and Remittances

Poverty in Pakistan

Haitian Dirt Cookies

The Underlying Tragedy

India State Hunger Index

Grinding Poverty in Resurgent India

Can Congress Deliver in India?

Food, Clothing and Shelter in India and Pakistan

What Works in Development? By Jessica Cohen, William Easterly

Karachi Tops Mumbai in Stock Performance

Karachi shares market significantly outperformed Mumbai in the last ten years. But this fact is not enough to get any positive attention from Fareed Zakaria, India's best-known cheerleader in the West.



As expected, Fareed Zakaria's discussion of "The Rise of the Rest" sings praises of the BRIC nations, particularly mentioning his native India in the most glowing terms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that Zakaria omits any positive mention of India's neighbor Pakistan in the context of economic performance in the decade of 1999-2009, and chooses to strike familiar themes of "Islamic jihadists" and "terrorism" when he does make any references to Pakistan.

What Zakaria has omitted is the story of the extraordinary returns Pakistan has produced for investors. Pakistan's key share index KSE-100 was just over 1000 points at the end of 1999, and it closed at over 9727.40 on Dec 31, 2009. Pakistan rupee remained quite stable at 60 rupees to a US dollar until 2008, slipping only recently to about 80 rupees to a dollar. In spite of the currency decline, Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms. During the same period of 1999-2009, Mumbai Sensex index moved from just over 5000 points to close at 17,464.81. If you had invested $100 in KSE-100 stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, you'd have over $900 today, while $100 invested in the Mumbai's Sensex stocks would be worth $274. Investment of $100 in emerging-market stocks in general on Dec. 31, 1999, would get you about $262 today, while $100 invested in the S&P500 would be worth $91.

Pakistan's KSE-100 stock index surged 55% in 2009 in US dollar terms and 65% in rupee terms, in a year that also saw the South Asian nation wracked by increased violence and its state institutions described by various media talking heads as being on the verge of collapse. Even more surprising is the whopping 825% increase in KSE-100 from 1999 to 2009, which makes it a significantly better performer than the BRIC nations. BRIC darling China has actually underperformed its peers, rising only 150 percent compared with energy-rich Brazil (520 percent) and Russia (326 percent) or well-regulated India (274 percent), which some investors see as a safer and more diverse bet compared with the Chinese equity market, which is dominated by bank stocks. This is the kind of performance that has got the attention of some of the top investors and investment firms around the world.

Unlike Zakaria and his fellow media Indophiles in the West, however, the smart investors are paying attention to the outsized returns produced by the Karachi Stock Exchange listed companies. Not only has Goldman Sachs reaffirmed Pakistan's place on the list of its top 15 emerging economies for 2010, smart international investment gurus are investing in Pakistan. For example, Mark Mobius of Franklin Templeton International Funds recently said he is "overweight compared with everyone else" in Pakistani stocks.

In late 2008, Pakistan asked for IMF's help in recovering from a severe economic crisis resulting from political turmoil and a balance of payment crisis. The Letter of Intent that Pakistan's PPP-led government signed with the IMF for the $7.6 billion bailout acknowledged that Pakistan's GDP jumped "from $60 billion in 2000-01 to $170 billion in 2007-08 with per capita income rising from under $500 to over $1000". The LOI with IMF also acknowledged that "Pakistan attracted over $5 billion in foreign direct investment in the 2006-07 fiscal year, ten times the figure of 2000-01. The government's debt fell from 68% of GDP in 2003-04 to less than 55% in 2006-07, and its foreign-exchange reserves reached $16.4 billion as recently as in October (2008)."

Pakistan's KSE-100 shares trade well below the price-earnings of Mumbai or Shanghai, and its KSE's market cap is only a fraction Pakistan's GDP, which is a healthy sign for future increase in valuation. By contrast, the Indian stock market capitalization already exceeds India's total GDP. That's the sign of a bubble that can not be sustained for long.

Lower current valuation relative to BRIC markets means that there is greater potential for growth and higher returns on investments in Pakistan in the future. That's what many smart professional investment firms such as Franklin-Templeton and Goldman Sachs are expecting by being bullish on Pakistan.

Pakistan has defied low expectations repeatedly in the past. Let me quote what Mark Bendeich of Reuters wrote on Jan 10, 2008:

"A little more than six years ago, immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities, few sane investment advisers would have recommended Pakistani stocks.
They should have. Their clients could have made a fortune. Since 2001, the nuclear-armed South Asian country, blamed for spawning generations of Islamic militants and threatening global security, has been making millionaires like newly minted coins.
As Western governments have fretted about Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of militants, the Karachi Stock Exchange's main share index has risen more than 10-fold."

Pakistan is just too big to fail. In spite of all of the serious problems it faces today, I remain optimistic that country will not only survive but thrive in the coming decades. With a fairly large educated urban middle class, vibrant media, active civil society, assertive judiciary, many philanthropic organizations, and a spirit of entrepreneurship, the nation has the necessary ingredients to overcome its current difficulties to build a strong economy and a democratic government accountable to its people.

Related Links:

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

India and Pakistan Contrasted 2010

Goldman, Franklin-Templeton Bullish on Pakistan

The Rise of the Rest by Fareed Zakaria

Why Colombia's Stock Market Beat China's?

Goldman Sachs "Next 11"

Emerging Markets Expert Investing in Pakistan

Who Are the Next 11?

GS Next 11 and Pakistan in 2050

Karachi Stock Exchange

Pakistan FDI Survey Report 2009

Emerging Markets: Brazil, China---and Pakistan?

Templeton's Asian Growth Fund

Pakistan Economic Survey 2008-2009

Pakistan's Infrastructure

Karachi Fashion Week

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

How To Invest in Pakistan?

Karachi Fashion Week Goes Bolder

More Pictures From Karachi Fashion Week 2009

Pakistan's Foreign Visitors Pleasantly Surprised

Start-ups Drive a Boom in Pakistan

Pakistan Conducting Research in Antarctica

Pakistan's Multi-billion Dollar IT Industry

Pakistan's Telecom Boom

Pakistan Telecom Sector Investment Prospects

ITU Internet Data

Eleven Days in Karachi

Pakistani Entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley

Musharraf's Economic Legacy

Infrastructure and Real Estate Development in Pakistan

Pakistan's International Rankings

Foreign Direct Investments in Pakistan 1999-2009

Pakistan's Financial Services Sector

Assessing Pakistan Army Capabilities

Pakistan's Auto Industry

Pakistan is not Falling

Jinnah's Pakistan Booms Amidst Doom and Gloom

Pakistan's Higher Education Reform

The Next 11 Emerging Economies--Euromonitor

Karachi Stock Exchange Presentation

Is KSE Poised For Major Crash?

Dalal Street Call: Keep the Faith